[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 2.60 MB, 800x802, d41586-018-05825-3_15980178.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14935918 No.14935918 [Reply] [Original]

People here often state that black holes aren't real.
What are the massive, dark and compact objects at the core of galaxies then?
I've heard people say that pic rel is just stars orbiting something akin to the eye of a hurricane, that there is no mass there.
I could be wrong but the orbits seem too extreme for it to be an eye, such a thing would be larger given the size of the galaxy.

What is the star going around bros?

>> No.14935990

>>14935918
Their gravity pull each other.

>> No.14936002

>>14935918
dark stars not black holes, there never was a "hole" its a retarded name in the first place.

>> No.14936010

Black holes aren't real because I watched YouTube videos and they say they aren't real. I am just a simple meat puppet OP. I hope that clears it up!

>> No.14936022
File: 141 KB, 233x391, 1594192479062.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14936022

>>14935918
>People here often state that black holes aren't real.
where the fuck is this "here" you're referencing?

>> No.14936028

>>14936022
Not OP, but I had a thread the other day that was SWARMING with people claiming that black holes weren't real.

>> No.14936035
File: 144 KB, 445x302, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14936035

>>14936028
the surface area of a sphere is pi squared r squared.

between knowing math wrong for thousands of years and interacting with a black hole to prove whether or not they exist, which of these two problems seem like they need a valuable amount of time dedicating to changing the minds of people.

>> No.14936037

>>14936022
you'll figure it out Sherlock

>> No.14936049

>>14936022
Lurk more retard

>> No.14936057
File: 14 KB, 183x232, 1516139298825.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14936057

>>14936037
>>14936049

>> No.14936072

>>14936057
Oh he's still under the impression everything is /pol/

>> No.14936089

>>14936072
nice projection
very ironic

>> No.14936207

>>14936002
This

Black holes aren't holes. They aren't black, they don't suck everything into them. They are the brightest things in the universe (active ones anyway).

>> No.14936215

>>14936002
There must be a hole that leads to another "place". The matter cannot disappear.

>> No.14936234

>>14936215
The matter doesn't disappear, blackholes have the same mass as the the star they were made from. The maths tells us they collapse into infinite density, we have no way to observe what actuallyy happens.

Black holes only got the name black hole because when they were first discovered, scientists weren't sure what to call them. During a lecture some guy stood up and shouted 'black hole' and from there the name stuck.

>> No.14936240

>>14936234
That guy's name? Albert Einstein.

>> No.14936247

>>14936240
A guy named John Wheeler.

https://youtu.be/SsBACBVtPYs
https://youtu.be/Bugbh3jybvc

>> No.14936770

>>14936010
99.999999% of videos i've seen on any space topic are always like
>Fascinating thing discovered in space MUST WATCH
so i watch and then after 2 hours of them rambling about nothing
>Scientists say it could be this thing
>Or maybe it isn't
>You decide

>> No.14936781

>>14936207
isn't that a quasar ? And the light comes from luminosity of the material being dragged into the accretion disk. But the actual hole part of the black hole is black

>> No.14936789
File: 8 KB, 500x443, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14936789

>>14935918
they are real though. That woman showed us all her supermassive hole a few years ago

>> No.14936817

>>14936781
The accretion disk is part of a black hole. You can't have one without the other.

>> No.14936823

>>14935918
Maybe its a really small cluster of mass with very high pressure that we can't detect?

>> No.14936941

I've yet to see a satisfying explanation as to how something could enter a black hole. As something approaches a black hole it will see everything else speed up from it's point of view, including the black hole. You would expect the hawking radiation it sees grow more and more powerful until it reaches the point where it's strong enough to keep it from falling into the hole.

>> No.14936957

>>14935918
Black holes are plasmoids.

>> No.14937092

>>14936941
The thing entering the black hole would just get sucked straight in as long as it passed the event horizon. It is only to the outside observer that would see it suspended there.

>> No.14937105
File: 44 KB, 1024x739, shadowrealm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14937105

>>14935918
>People here often state that black holes aren't real.
Because there is no proof of them, yes
>What are the massive, dark and compact objects at the core of galaxies then?
You tell us?
>I've heard people say that pic rel is just stars orbiting something akin to the eye of a hurricane, that there is no mass there.
If there is "none of the hurricane" in the eye of the hurricane...why do you think there would be mass at the center of a galactic sized hurricane?
>I could be wrong but the orbits seem too extreme for it to be an eye, such a thing would be larger given the size of the galaxy.
It isn't anything at all. It's as real as a shadow. Would you chase a shadow if the light around it was causing it to be circular shaped? How many names would you give to a shadow before you figured out they don't actually exist?

>> No.14937119

>>14936817
the definite of a black hole is this though
>A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing – no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light – can escape from it.
no light can escape, meaning the stuff outside the region where no light can escape is not the black hole, it's an effect of the black hole

>> No.14937140

>>14937119
The disc surrounds the black hole. It is as much part of the black hole as everything else.

>> No.14937505
File: 32 KB, 580x359, image_10216-MAXI-J1820-070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14937505

>>14937140
i don't think that's right, you can see from the picture that the disk around the black hole is connected to the star still, so if it was part of the black hole then where does it end. The black hole itself is clearly defined as the region where no light can escape. The name "black hole" is kind of a giveaway as to what part is the black hole, it's the hole part that is black. Quasars are the brightest objects in the universe, they are "powered" by black holes, but aren't the black holes themself
>Quasars: Brightest Objects in the Universe
https://www.space.com/17262-quasar-definition.html
for this picture here for example the black hole is the black part in the middle, not the orange stuff
>>14936789

>> No.14937719

>>14935918
Blackholes are theoretical. The 'things' we can barely see in the cosmos are just that. These observations of these 'objects' are cobbled together by media and put under the same term 'blackhole' which also relates to the blackhole theorem.

Anyone who works in the astrophysics grounds who take science seriously will tell you that the objects they observe in the night sky may not be blackhole(theoretical ones)

>> No.14937760

>>14935918
what if there is no black hole and it's just the center of mass of the galaxy

>> No.14937987

>>14936789
Can't believe they fooled the world with that shit. It's just using algorithms trained to produce images like that.

>> No.14938189
File: 38 KB, 537x501, 1666603114807.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14938189

>>14935918
Its a center of gravity

>> No.14938442
File: 29 KB, 500x500, 1665803505889116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14938442

>>14938189

>> No.14938940

>>14935918
>What are the massive, dark and compact objects at the core of galaxies then?
Collapsars.

>> No.14938957

>>14935918
>Black hole alternatives
your hole is a great alternative

>> No.14939376

>>14936957
>>14938940
Please explain.
>>14937616
We are specifically not talking about lack holes.

>> No.14939609

>>14935918
Fuzzball

>> No.14939743

>>14938442
the milky way has est. 0.9-1.5 trillion solar masses
Saggitarius A* is estimated at 4 million solar masses
that is an indistinguishable amount relative to the galaxy's mass. Has a center-of-mass calculation ever been done?

>> No.14939752

>>14938189
>Its a center of gravity
With an accretion disk that glows brighter than Langley VA?

>> No.14939808

>>14936770
For me it's David Butler

>> No.14939966

>>14939743
>>14938189
>>14937760
Center of mass is nonsense. What happens when you get down to the Earth's center of mass? Is the very center some cusp of incredible gravitational forces? No. As you get to the center the layers above you cancel by symmetry, and so there is no net force at the center. The center of mass is not some magical signpost. At the center of mass of the galaxy is where you would see the lowest forces. Kepler's laws still apply and they show that the mass enclosed within the orbits of these stars is 4 million solar masses.

>> No.14940524

>>14939752
>an accretion disk that glows
Where is the evidence?

>>14939966
>What happens when you get down to the Earth's center of mass?
>As you get to the center the layers above you cancel by symmetry
Where is the evidence?


>At the center of mass of the galaxy is where you would see the lowest forces
>Kepler's laws still apply
Where is the evidence?

All of this is conjecture. You have a model make no experiments and assume it to be true. This isnt science, its religion.

>> No.14940574

>>14936823
you mean density? a clump of dense matter that doesn't emit light? HHMM?

>> No.14940590

>>14937140
but its not part of the black hole its just under its effects, the black hole squashes matter into a thin fast spinning disk, the matter has a lot of potential energy. the disk closer to the black hole orbits faster than the outside this get amplified by gravity getting exponentially stronger closer to the black hole it is, when particles from the fast moving part rub against particles from a slower moving part they emit radiation via electromagnetism so they can move back down to a lower energy level

>> No.14940597

>>14939609
"Fuzzballs are theorized by some superstring theory scientists to be the true quantum description of black holes"

>> No.14940796

>>14940524
>Where is the evidence?
Shell theorem is mathematical fact.
>Where is the evidence?
If you want to claim it's "just the center of mass" then the "just" would imply you're not totally rewriting gravitation. And you can test Kepler's laws against the observational data of the stars, as they orbit the center. Kepler derived his laws from observation.

>> No.14941582

>>14935918
eternally collapsing object

>> No.14942607

>>14935918
OH look another black hole "photo"

>> No.14942616

>>14936022
the sentence "people on /sci/ often think [absolutely retarded opinion]" has a 95% chance of being true

>> No.14943346

>>14935918
They're probably just very large, dark neutron/quark stars.

>> No.14943353

>>14940796
>Shell theorem is mathematical fact.
There are no "mathematical facts" in empirical science, only what is observed and what is not observed. What is observed here is that the barycenter of these orbits is empty space, as with every orbital barycenter, and that no satisfying solution for the three-body-problem exists because orbital mechanics is too complicated to model coherently.

>> No.14943377

>>14939743
proposition: If in the centre of the milky way, there is balance between all of the trillions of solar masses, then things there will just collapse into eachother as though there were no galaxy at all.

>> No.14943380

>>14936022
saying "here" and "you guys" and "/sci/" or referring to the board as a person is a successful strategy to emotionally manipulate people into making replies.

>> No.14943387

>>14939743
>that is an indistinguishable amount relative to the galaxy's mass. Has a center-of-mass calculation ever been done?
It would require an incredible amount of computational power to perform with any sense of accuracy, which is why science shies away from trying. Their inability to solve the three body problem allows astrophysicists to make things up without subjecting them to examination.

>> No.14943388

>>14943380
You know, that wasn't consciously my aim but you're right.

>> No.14943398

>>14943388
I know i'm right.

>> No.14943514

>>14943398
Proud of you.

>> No.14943921

>>14935918
>no mention of plank stars SAD.

>> No.14943941

>>14943353
>There are no "mathematical facts" in empirical science
Theory is a part of science, science is not simply a catalog of observations. If you want to claim it's just the center of mass then youre clearly not proposing to rewrite gravitation. With Newtonian gravity shell theorem is a fact.
>What is observed here is that the barycenter of these orbits is empty space
It's not empty, it flares on occasion.
>no satisfying solution for the three-body-problem exists because orbital mechanics is too complicated to model coherently.
Pop-sci drivel. The three body problem is that you cannot get a general exact solution analytically. But it can be modelled to high precision numerically. All the trajectories for spacecraft come from numerical simulations. Similarly there are simulations of the galaxy which involve tens of millions of particles. And the three body problem only means that general orbits cannot be calculated analytically, nothing stops you from calculating the force with a given configuration which would be more than sufficient to show something strange was happening in the center of mass.

>> No.14944557

>>14943941
This.

>> No.14944895

>>14940796
bruh what if black holes ARE just a center of mass
what if there's nothing actually in them

>> No.14945221

>>14944895
That doesn't match observation. Like the anon above pointed out, the galactic center flares up from time to time.

>> No.14945224

>>14945221
That's because of disturbed plasmoid behavior and the electrical nature of the plasma in galaxies.

>> No.14945774

>>14945221
Flares up on what?

>> No.14945775

>>14945774
Galaxies emit large plasma geysers along with gamma rays, and sometimes disgorge quasars as well.

>> No.14945789

>>14945775
And how is this an evidence for black holes and rule out center of grabity

>> No.14945905

>>14945789
He's not arguing for black holes, just against it being a massless center of gravity, I think.

>> No.14946118

>>14945774
In the near infrared primarily, which is how OPs video was made. It is not empty as claimed. At radio and x-ray wavelengths it's a persistent source with some variability.

>> No.14947248

>>14935918
Look into black hole firewall

>> No.14947255

>>14945789
It's an argument against black holes, but for some process being at work in the galactic center regardless.

>> No.14947913

>>14935918
Does anyone remember the idea they're some sort of bose Einstein condensate?

>> No.14948713

>>14935918
Fake.

>> No.14948750

Black holes are newtonian. Schwarzild radius can be derived from newtons gravity law. The king jews contribution IS MINIMAL TO PHYSICS

>> No.14949309

The entire universe could be inside of a black hole, ,shit blows my mind

>> No.14949490

>>14949309
Isn't this the basis of the holographic principle or something

>> No.14949497

I'm a midwit but I have a feeling in my gut that what we perceive as black holes is the tip of the iceberg of something existing in a higher dimension and we are seeing the equivalent of flatlanders seeing a line instead of you.
I dunno.

>> No.14950713

>>14947248
The firewall theory doesn't even make sense.

>> No.14951089

>>14950713
Are you just gonna not elaborate or..

>> No.14951103

> People here often state that black holes aren't real.
You mean idiots.
> What are the massive, dark and compact objects at the core of galaxies then?
> What is the star going around bros?
Black holes

>> No.14951111

Black holes are real but singularities aren't

>> No.14951270

>>14935918
You have to understand that the Schwarzschild solution (stationary black hole) is simply a point mass in space, kind of like the solution for the point charge using Maxwell's equation. The existence of the event horizon is one of their unexpected properties. The people who claim they aren't real and only tell you about supermassive black holes are retarded; it's true that the existence of these supermassive black holes is an unresolved problem. In principle, it's possible that whatever is at the core of these galaxies is not the supermassive black hole. However, the black hole by itself is just a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations.

>> No.14951286

>>14951270
And as anyone can tell you, a point mass can't exist. It's a one-dimensional mathematical figment masquerading as a genuine article of three-dimensional physical reality in the minds of schizophrenics.

>> No.14951299

>>14951286
I don't understand what the problem here is. I guess, since Einstein's equations are non-linear, you cannot build up an arbitrary mass distribution from point sources. This kind of argument obviously fails for a linear theory like electrodynamics or Newtonian gravity since they are linear. However, the Schwarzschild solution only requires spherical symmetry to be valid; the mass is identified later by the radial coordinate goes to infinity and comparing the Schwarzschild metric to the Newtonian metric in that limit.

On the other hand, maybe you're just retarded.

>> No.14952540

>>14951111
This, objects with an EH but that are non singular. Basically Planck stars/collapstars

>> No.14952694

>>14951299
You're discussing a mathematical solution to a mathematical problem that lacks roots in observational reality.

>> No.14952758

>>14952540
singularities don't exist because the black hole evaporates before anything falling inward can reach the center

>> No.14953362

>>14952758
I agree, just a hunch.

>> No.14953508

>>14936035
The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r PROOF:
We can define a sphere as an infinite number of infentesimally wide (2d) circles with the same radius rotated about an arbitrary central axis (this definition fits all requirements of a sphere). This provides an effective 3d analogue (an infinite number of 2d figures around a 2d figure) for our definition of a 2d circle, which is a infinite collection of 1d figures around a 1d center.
circumfrence of a circle = 2*pi*r
Since the surface area of the sphere is the same as all the circumfrences added together, we just need to multiply the circumfrence by the number of circles based on our definition of a sphere
To find the number of circles, we need to use the definition of circle, which is an infinite number of points equidistant from a central point. If we only focus on points perpindicular to our arbitrary central axis, we can simplify this problem to a semicurcular arc where each point on the arc corresponds to a single circle, and the connection between the two end points is our diameter. We note that every point on the arc, which represents a single circle, corresponds with a point on the diameter and vice versa, which means that the number of circles in 3d space is the same as the radius.
We can now say that the equation of a circle is the diameter times the circumfrence of a single circle in the sphere, which is the same as 4*pi*r

>> No.14953512

>>14953508
*4*pi*r^2
Typo at the end there

>> No.14953734
File: 1.12 MB, 484x305, 166633031669989727.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953734

>>14936240
Kek. Underrated.

>> No.14953749
File: 30 KB, 250x444, 1666630064914826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953749

>>14936789
>That woman showed us all her supermassive hole a few years ago

Full results were never released to the public.

>> No.14953769

They're explosions except in this dimension time goes in reverse

>> No.14954192

>>14935918
the idea of a singularity doesn't make sense. If not even light can escape the event horizon, doesn't that mean any mass pulled within the horizon would be accelerated faster than the speed of light?

A more reasonable explanation would be the accreting matter being spun around the horizon in layers, like an onion or a cocoon. IDK if this is true or not, but supposedly this accelerates their time relative to their surroundings, so the matter that we see just above the event horizon would technically be a look into what happens at the heat death of the universe

>> No.14954380

>>14954192
Not sure about that last part. To me it seems that time dilates to infinity at the EH, both making it impossible to reach in before the BH evaporates and appear to move slower and slower to an outside observer until freezing almost completely immediately before the EH and redshifting to a black, hyperthin shell.

>> No.14955605

>>14935918
Google quark star

>> No.14957651
File: 381 KB, 350x263, 1667059351700456.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14957651

>>14953508